The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated pressures faced by institutions of higher education on aspects ranging from shifting demographics and the “enrollment cliff,” and considerations of cost, student debt and institutional fiscal stability, to issues related to the value of a degree and the ability of higher education institutions to adequately prepare graduates for employment.
Most of these issues are not new and do need to be addressed effectively and rapidly if higher ed is to maintain its ability to serve as a beacon of opportunity and social mobility. While the past two decades have seen significant mission creep and it is clear that no institution can be “all things to all people,” there is a misconception that all decisions related to the future have to be on an “either/or” basis rather than in attempting to embrace options enhance flexibility.
Too often, false dichotomies are set up between choices that do not have to be made and take on a life of their own, resulting in loss of focus on students and their future. As institutions of higher education prepare for the start of a new academic year, here are 9 such examples, many of which have become urban myths and all of which need to be re-envisioned as we emerge from the pandemic ensuring that the focus is on serving students, and society, decreasing inequities and increasing access, rather than clinging to elitism or false perceptions.
1. Access and excellence: Perhaps the greatest myth in academia is that enhancing access automatically results in a loss in rigor and excellence. Unfortunately, metrics used in ranking perpetuate this myth through increased focus on incoming measures of quality such as SAT/ACT scores, rank in class, and GPA, all of which are more a means of deselecting students for admission than a true test of inherent ability. Acknowledging that a basic level of preparation is essential for success, far more can be done to enhance opportunities for access to the highest levels of excellence in teaching and learning, recognizing that what is done after a student enters our halls is far more impactful than the metrics by which they were admitted.
Universities such as the University of Texas at Arlington, Arizona State University, and the University of Central Florida have all shown that it is possible to increase access and enrollment without decreases in student success. In fact, all three, and other similar institutions, have shown increases in graduation rates, and, as importantly, degree completion, along with increases in national reputation related to impact and social mobility.
2. 2-year and 4-year Institutions: A second, and unfortunate, persistent myth is that student success is substantially increased by following the direct route from high school to a 4-year institution. There is a misconception that students who start at community colleges have a lower level of academic preparation than those at a four-year college or university. Students attend, or start at, community colleges for a variety of reasons, ranging from lower cost of tuition and ease of geographical access, closeness to parents and families, greater comfort with the individual attention and guidance at some community colleges, and the ease of transitioning directly to the work force if they need to do so prior to completing a four-year degree through technical/applied science streams. Further, many studies have shown that, on average, there is an imperceptible difference in performance between native students (those starting their freshman year at a university) and transfer students a year after transfer. In some cases, transfer students do better because they are more motivated, committed, and often older. The myth, in addition to the emphasis placed through rankings, reporting of completion rates, and at times even as related state funding based on first-time full-time students, often results in an emphasis against transfers and pathways, in favor of a direct high school to 4-year institution pipeline. In reality, higher education and society need both sets of institutions and options of multiple pathways between them and the workforce, including those of concurrent enrollment, and a balance between work and study.
3. Traditional and “Real College” Students: The student population today is far different from that of 50 years ago. While students do follow direct pipelines from high school to college, and from high school through community colleges to 4-year institutions, increasingly the population includes first generation students, older students, students returning to pursue, or complete, degrees after years in the workforce, students who are concurrently taking courses at both 2-year and 4-year institutions, as well as an increasing number who are balancing family and work responsibilities along with their dreams of completing a degree. Full-time study may not even be possible for a large percentage of these students, and institutions of higher education need to recognize that these populations need a range of different support mechanisms that are often very different in structure and flexibility from those offered decades ago when the norm was of direct pipelines rather than of pathways. Student success is dependent on meeting these students where they are and addressing their needs rather than forcing a “one size fits all” set of support mechanisms and expectation of degree progression. Non-traditional (or rather “real college, a term used to better describe the population) students now comprise a growing segment of the post-secondary population with some estimating that as many as 37% of the U.S college-going population is over the age of 25, with 64% working and as many as 31% living below the federal poverty line. Economic and social realities necessitate that higher education pay much greater attention than ever before to addressing basic needs insecurities of our students and looking holistically at the needs of each rather than assuming a homogeneous population.
4. Face-to-face and digital modalities of teaching and learning: The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the transition, and acceptance, of digital modes of teaching and learning and demonstrated that the otherwise staid, and largely slow, academic ship could, when needed, react extremely quickly to ensure continuity for students. By and large, the modalities used were those of “remote emergency teaching” rather than true online immersion with a focus on adaptive learning and opening of new vistas of interaction, engagement, and active learning. However, the steps taken to assuage effects of the pandemic have clearly shown some of the advantages of digital modalities and the importance of providing greater choice to students and faculty through an increase in the palette of offerings ranging from fully online and immersive, to the traditional face-to-face mode, and variations of hybrid, flipped, and hyflex modalities in between. Rather than being a binary choice, institutions of higher education should continue developing, and offering, multiple modes of engagement that promote greater learning, enhanced access, and flexibility to all students building on technology to augment offerings in and out of the classroom. While traditional, face-to-face instruction, meets the needs of some students, the digital/online and hybrid modalities provide greater equity for those who are unable to sync work and class schedules, have family obligations such as children or elderly parents, or have to travel as part of their work/career.
5. Academic knowledge and preparation for the workforce: The perception that intellectual preparation through a rigorous academic curriculum or the development of skills necessary for the workforce is a binary choice presents a false conflict. Today, it is no longer enough to have only academic knowledge at the end of a degree. Rather than try to provide disciplinary skills, a liberal education core, and talent development through different aspects of a student’s experience, higher education needs to integrate them ensuring that each student is not only prepared academically, but also prepared to join (or develop, in the case of entrepreneurs) the workforce as an immediately productive member. The inclusion of paid internships, curricula that integrate work based examples and skills, integrated certifications, incorporation of capstone projects from the corporate and non-profit sectors that bring contemporary examples of challenges that need to be addressed, and greater interaction with potential employers in courses and in extramural activities in addition to a renewed focus on having guest lecturers from experts in the field and ensuring that faculty have work experience outside academia, among other aspects, can provide a means of addressing this, enhancing transformative experiences for all students, and assuring the intersection of knowledge and relevant job skills, addressing simultaneously the need for learned citizens and a highly skilled workforce.
6. Degrees and credentials, certificates, and certifications: While degrees have been the presumed sine qua non of opportunity and upward social mobility for decades, recent years have shown a dramatic incongruity in reports that recent graduates are unable to find jobs and that employers in turn cannot find people with the skills they needed even for entry-level jobs requiring a bachelor’s degree. Rapid changes in the workforce accelerated by automation and artificial intelligence potentially necessitating the reskilling and upskilling of substantial segments of the workforce, as well as the critical and growing need for specific skill sets, has created the need for alternate shorter-term credentials. To date, institutions of higher education have largely considered non-credit and non-degree offerings as distinct aspects of their function. However, the future lies in dissemination of knowledge over a continuum, both through modules that can be earned separately and stacked, as well as through degrees with a focus on enabling not just degree-based education, but also to reskill/upskill employees on a continuous basis. None of this negates or reduces the value of a degree. Rather it extends the range of knowledge offerings over a continuum in forms/modalities appropriate for various stages of life/careers.
7. Working on campus and remote work: The past 15+ months have demonstrated that many aspects of work for which face-to-face interactions were previously considered critical can not only be conducted remotely but can in some cases even be more effective while enhancing work-life balance for the individual. Large corporate entities such as Amazon and Salesforce have already announced that they will use the lessons learned from the pandemic to increase remote and/or hybrid modes of work, thereby decreasing the need for real estate, increasing flexibility in recruiting and retaining the very best employees (since geographical colocation is a reduced barrier), and increasing flexibility for their employees. There are many aspects of campus work that could well be done remotely or in a hybrid flex mode and higher ed needs to avoid the reflex action of just returning to old ways, using the experiences learned to now re-envision campus life and services, figuring out the best of both worlds – remote and on campus, not just for students but also for faculty and staff. Greater ability to employ without geographical constraints, the ability to accommodate family and personal needs of employees, the opportunity to increase diversity, and better address work-life balance, while simultaneously re-envisioning the use and need for space, including parking, should all be attractors for re-envisioning the future.
8. Traditional length terms and shorter options: Exigencies resulting from the pandemic forced the use of term lengths other than those used traditionally with many institutions experimenting with multiple shorter terms, building on aspects that were already in place at some institutions both in the face-to-face and online modalities. For example, Arizona State University offered the choice of A, B and C sessions for its students even prior to the pandemic with A and B sessions being half the length of the traditional semester and C sessions being the full length. The University of Texas at Arlington regularly offers online students in Nursing a range of term lengths as well. Shorter terms with multiple starts throughout the year (rather than just the traditional fall and spring), enable working students to balance their needs and responsibilities, and decrease the “drop-out” phenomenon that is due more to the unpredictability of life than poor academic performance. The use of a carousel concept with shorter terms that enable students to take courses when possible, stop for a short period(s), and return, enables them to balance work and life responsibilities with those of study and is also advantageous for working professionals in matching the timing of shifts or periods of intense travel. When combined with the option of hybrid attendance, allowing students the choice of both face-to-face and online options for the added alternatives could well result in greater degree completion and equity for students, again suggestion that adding alternatives brought to the forefront by the pandemic could well be advantageous as we return.
9. Services provided inhouse and outsourcing – Institutions of higher education are extremely good, or should be, at their primary mission–ensuring learning, the development of new knowledge, and the dissemination of it. Functions such as food service, parking, and others are often outsourced because it may be more effective and efficient to have entities for whom this is their core business handle these functions. In similar fashion, with adequate and appropriate oversight, other functions including payroll and 24/7 help desks, and even supplementary student wellness and health services may be better run by professional organizations leaving the university to focus on its core competencies. Outsourcing, if done well, and with the appropriate level of oversight by the institution can be extremely effective and will often result in greater fiscal efficiencies and higher levels of student satisfaction. In many cases sharing of courses between sets of partner institution takes this to an even higher level enabling effective use of resources, greater opportunities for students, and greater equitability and accessibility. Thus, the myth that everything has to be done by a single institution and that outsourcing and partnerships do not work in academia needs to be set aside, as we explore and implement partnerships and collaborations where appropriate.
While the past year and half has resulted in tremendous challenges and hardship, it has also caused academia to innovate, re-envisioning how it could best meet the needs of its students while ensuring the health and safety of faculty and staff. The pandemic catalyzed a range of new considerations and accelerated the adoption and adaptation of many other alternatives that were being considered extremely cautiously prior to the pandemic.
Plato is reported to have said that “our need will be the real creator” leading to the more commonly used proverb “necessity is the mother of invention.” Having now created, invented, adapted, and experimented, it would be in higher education’s best interests if it did not go back to the “old” or to a minor modification as in a “new normal” but used the lessons learned to enable greater flexibility and equity, re-envisioning its modalities and offerings, and in doing so, perhaps better meeting the focus of its mission – the success of our students and the advancement of our faculty and staff through better work-life balance.
- Guidance on higher ed revenue sharing may be safer than many assume - December 6, 2024
- Students using AI: It’s not that scary and shouldn’t be banned - December 2, 2024
- Identity theft preys on campuses–here’s what we can do about it - November 26, 2024